PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Mar 9, 2023
Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act
This bill generally prohibits federal employees from censoring the speech of others while acting in an official capacity.
Specifically, the bill prohibits employees of executive agencies or who are otherwise in the competitive service from (1) using their official authority to censor a private entity; or (2) engaging in censorship of a private entity while on duty, wearing a uniform, or using official government property. The bill provides certain exceptions for law enforcement, subject to specified reporting requirements.
Employees are subject to disciplinary action, civil penalties, or both for violations.
The bill defines censor or censorship to mean influencing or coercing, or directing another to influence or coerce, for the removal of lawful speech, the addition of disclaimers, or the restriction of access with respect to any interactive computer service (e.g., social media).
People & committees
Rep. Comer, James [R-KY-1] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 206 (Roll no. 141).
House roll call 141 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 206 (Roll no. 141).
House roll call 141 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 204 - 218 (Roll no. 140).
House roll call 140 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1230-1232)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 140, the Chair put the question on the motion to recommit the bill and by voice vote announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Landsman demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the motion to recommit until a time to be announced.
The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
Mr. Landsman moved to recommit to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. (text: CR H1221)
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 140.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Rose amendment No. 10.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Rose amendment No. 9.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1219-1221)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 140 as unfinished business.
On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Comer moved that the committee rise.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1196-1198)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 140 as unfinished business.
On motion that the Committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Comer moved that the Committee rise.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Ogles amendment No. 8.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Ogles amendment No. 7.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Jackson Lee amendment No. 6, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson Lee demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Jackson Lee amendment No. 6.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Good (VA) amendment No. 5.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Perry amendment No. 4, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Fitzpatrick demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Perry amendment No.4.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Bishop (NC) amendment No. 3.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Comer amendment No. 2.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 199, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Clyde amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 140.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Mike Flood to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 199 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 140, H.J. Res. 27 and S. 619. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 140, under a structured rule. The resolution provides for consideration of H.J.Res. 27 and S. 619, under closed rules. General debate is limited to one hour of debate on all measures.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 199. (consideration: CR H1180-1194; text: CR H1185-1186)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 199 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 140, H.J. Res. 27 and S. 619. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 140, under a structured rule. The resolution provides for consideration of H.J.Res. 27 and S. 619, under closed rules. General debate is limited to one hour of debate on all measures.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. H. Rept. 118-5.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 2.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability. H. Rept. 118-5.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 24 - 20.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 27, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.140 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.140 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.140 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.140 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.